HS2 in the press

[MarkyT]

Here is Gilligans article in the Telegraph

As Paul says nothing new. shame though it was discussed on the Andrew Marr show wothout an expert to refute the claims.

A suspect we will see a flurry of desperiate anti-HS2 articles over the next few weeks as we approach the third reading of the HS2 bill.

A factual correction: Slower running speed would not adversely affect capacity of the line as the article claims, and in fact might increase it marginally if trains were allowed to run a little closer together as a result. Reduced speed would erode the carrying capacity of a given fleet size however as a longer journey time would reduce the number of round trips an individual unit could achieve over a given period.

 

[The Planner]

HS2 haven't decided on slab or ballast yet from what I hear....

 

[TheKnightWho]

Someone better tell the Japanese and Chinese that all their lines are at risk of collapse any minute now! No doubt Gilligan would believe that's actually true, too.

It amazes how people can be this ignorant, when there are working examples contradicting their claims.

 

[Domh245]

Someone better tell the Japanese and Chinese that all their lines are at risk of collapse any minute now! No doubt Gilligan would believe that's actually true, too.

It amazes how people can be this ignorant, when there are working examples contradicting their claims.

Whilst that was my first thought as well, and indeed the whole article just seems to be scaremongering, I did note that Prof Woodward is credited as an expert in railway geo-engineering. Is there some sort of ground condition that would set HS2 apart from the other High Speed Railways around the world

 

[TheKnightWho]

Whilst that was my first thought as well, and indeed the whole article just seems to be scaremongering, I did note that Prof Woodward is credited as an expert in railway geo-engineering. Is there some sort of ground condition that would set HS2 apart from the other High Speed Railways around the world

I get the impression that the very existence of Rayleigh waves is what has sparked this article, rather than anything particular about Britain that makes them particularly dangerous. The comparison to the sonic boom is reminiscent of scaremongering articles back in the day talking about how supersonic aircraft would shake themselves apart etc., without taking into account measures that can be taken against that.

(Although this does answer my query of why most Chinese high-speed lines are built on enormous concrete viaducts, up to 100 miles long: it would seem to minimise this effect.)

 

[Ironside]

It amazes how people can be this ignorant, when there are working examples contradicting their claims.

It's no surprise that anybody is that ignorant, but it disappoints me that tv shows don't do their homework.

 

[100andthirty]

It's as though Gilligan believes that some chaps with a digger turn up one day and throw down some mud to form an embankment.

This (the report referred to) is just the sort of study that I would expect a professional engineering team to commission so that it can produce the right designs for the right structures. Be in no doubt that HS2 has a highly professional engineering team

 

[ExRes]

It's as though Gilligan believes that some chaps with a digger turn up one day and throw down some mud to form an embankment.

This (the report referred to) is just the sort of study that I would expect a professional engineering team to commission so that it can produce the right designs for the right structures. Be in no doubt that HS2 has a highly professional engineering team

What Gilligan thinks is totally irrelevant, he's just a hack

Why do we have to have the boring and ridiculous 'scaremongering' label thrown around on this forum? If the report has been commissioned then it should be expected to underline the negative aspects as well as the positive and we should all be worried only if HS2 didn't commission such studies, the whole HS2 program is going to be expensive enough as it is, ignoring the worries of people such as Woodward, Connolly and Krylov would be criminal as well as financially ruinous if their worries were to prove true

 

[TheKnightWho]

What Gilligan thinks is totally irrelevant, he's just a hack

Why do we have to have the boring and ridiculous 'scaremongering' label thrown around on this forum? If the report has been commissioned then it should be expected to underline the negative aspects as well as the positive and we should all be worried only if HS2 didn't commission such studies, the whole HS2 program is going to be expensive enough as it is, ignoring the worries of people such as Woodward, Connolly and Krylov would be criminal as well as financially ruinous if their worries were to prove true

Saying that HS2 trains might derail at high-speed is scaremongering. Just because there are technical difficulties to overcome does not mean that we can't point out those trying to instil fear in the public when they spin things in a certain way.

 

[ExRes]

Saying that HS2 trains might derail at high-speed is scaremongering. Just because there are technical difficulties to overcome does not mean that we can't point out those trying to instil fear in the public when they spin things in a certain way.

But surely, as qualified engineers, these people have a right and a duty to point out what they consider to be possible consequences if HS2 is built on the cheap and doesn't take safety over cost as paramount, they would be failing the public to an enormous level if they stayed quiet for fear of being called scaremongers

If I was to see an apartment complex being built and thought that its construction method was unsafe, assuming that I had an engineering background, would I be a scaremonger if I reported it or would and should I be thanked for possibly saving peoples lives?

 

[Philip Phlopp]

What Gilligan thinks is totally irrelevant, he's just a hack

Why do we have to have the boring and ridiculous 'scaremongering' label thrown around on this forum? If the report has been commissioned then it should be expected to underline the negative aspects as well as the positive and we should all be worried only if HS2 didn't commission such studies, the whole HS2 program is going to be expensive enough as it is, ignoring the worries of people such as Woodward, Connolly and Krylov would be criminal as well as financially ruinous if their worries were to prove true

It's being described as scaremongering because it's scaremongering.

There are engineering solutions to the issues Woodward raises, in the same way if I or some of the other OLE engineers were to suggest, quite credibly, running at 250mph could cause the OLE to fail, it would, technically, be true, unless changes were made to increase contact wire cross section/weight, tightened mast spacing, and increased tensioning.

186mph running using the Mark 3b OLE on the ECML, particularly with two pantographs raised as per the Class 373 trainsets, would result, fairly quickly in a dewirement and almighty mess (in fact 125mph running with the Regional Eurostar sets was an issue and is still banned).

The same trains work almost flawlessly day in, day out, on HS1, because there's an engineering solution, which is a catenary built around heavier duty contact wire and higher tension. The engineering cost of the upgraded OLE is minimal in the grand scheme of things, fractions of pennies in the pound, engineering out any genuine issues with track, related to speed, is, I'm told, easily achievable and affordable, well accommodated within the budget and in comparison with tunnelling and structures costs, a staggeringly tiny cost.

I can still (just) remember the tales of doom, of derailed trains and dead bodies everywhere that ASLEF prophesied would happen with 125mph trains having only one member of staff in the driving cab. We hear all sorts from plenty of people who in theory can be trusted, but you need to question why they're saying what they're saying and if they're only telling half the story.

 

[edwin_m]

If this is a newly-discovered problem then why was HS1 laid on what is effectively a ground level viaduct across Rainham marshes, where the adjacent but lower-speed Tilbury line gets by with a conventional formation.

Evidently this issue is well understood and no doubt is receiving proper consideration in the design.

 

[TheKnightWho]

But surely, as qualified engineers, these people have a right and a duty to point out what they consider to be possible consequences if HS2 is built on the cheap and doesn't take safety over cost as paramount, they would be failing the public to an enormous level if they stayed quiet for fear of being called scaremongers

If I was to see an apartment complex being built and thought that its construction method was unsafe, assuming that I had an engineering background, would I be a scaremonger if I reported it or would and should I be thanked for possibly saving peoples lives?

It is entirely possible to state something that is true whilst also scaremongering: it's about the context and tone in which it's put.

If I was in charge of a paper and put the headline "Chance that plane might EXPLODE on take-off!" that would be technically true, but would clearly be misleading and scaring people needlessly; mostly because the chance is very, very small. Likewise, with this, people are going to read the headline and not necessarily pick up on the fact that HS2 are clearly going to deal with the issue: it reads as though they're being ignorant, reckless and dangerous in the way they're going about things.

No-one is criticising the report: just the ridiculous way in which Gilligan has reported matters.

 

[Phil.]

Whilst that was my first thought as well, and indeed the whole article just seems to be scaremongering, I did note that Prof Woodward is credited as an expert in railway geo-engineering. Is there some sort of ground condition that would set HS2 apart from the other High Speed Railways around the world

Yes. If you read the article you'll see that it's poor soil conditions and the speed. HS2 is projected to be faster than any other high speed railway. The author(s) of the report are not just plucking theories out of the air, these people - unlike virtually, if not all of the posters on this forum (including me) - really do know what they're talking about.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

It's being described as scaremongering because it's scaremongering.

There are engineering solutions to the issues Woodward raises, in the same way if I or some of the other OLE engineers were to suggest, quite credibly, running at 250mph could cause the OLE to fail, it would, technically, be true, unless changes were made to increase contact wire cross section/weight, tightened mast spacing, and increased tensioning.

186mph running using the Mark 3b OLE on the ECML, particularly with two pantographs raised as per the Class 373 trainsets, would result, fairly quickly in a dewirement and almighty mess (in fact 125mph running with the Regional Eurostar sets was an issue and is still banned).

The same trains work almost flawlessly day in, day out, on HS1, because there's an engineering solution, which is a catenary built around heavier duty contact wire and higher tension. The engineering cost of the upgraded OLE is minimal in the grand scheme of things, fractions of pennies in the pound, engineering out any genuine issues with track, related to speed, is, I'm told, easily achievable and affordable, well accommodated within the budget and in comparison with tunnelling and structures costs, a staggeringly tiny cost.

I can still (just) remember the tales of doom, of derailed trains and dead bodies everywhere that ASLEF prophesied would happen with 125mph trains having only one member of staff in the driving cab. We hear all sorts from plenty of people who in theory can be trusted, but you need to question why they're saying what they're saying and if they're only telling half the story.

That was because Ray Buckton was trying to retain jobs.

 

[D1009]

The maximum projected speed on HS2 of 400 km/h is still well short of the world rail speed record of 574.8 km/h which was achieved in France in April 2007.

 

[HSTEd]

(in fact 125mph running with the Regional Eurostar sets was an issue and is still banned).

The ban was relaxed south of Grantham (ironically shortly before the service was withdrawn) and IIRC had nothing to do with the supposed fragility of the overhead wire equipment (remember the two pantographs are a looong way apart).

The problem was that the power supply system would collapse if the trains went anything near full power, so were often run on only one PC.
But the line should be built on slab track anyway - as it is inherently superior when we are going to have fixed track layouts for the forseable future.... as we are here.

 

[The Ham]

Having read the article I'm never going on a train that travels over 100mph, as from article:

Prof Krylov said the effect, known as a “Rayleigh wave,” was greatest in soft ground and had been observed in trains travelling as slowly as 110mph in Sweden, across alluvial soil.

As I don't want to run the risk that my train may derail!

I of course would have ignore the evidence of the number of daily trains in the UK which travel at this speed or faster and don't derail.

 

[Altnabreac]

What Gilligan thinks is totally irrelevant, he's just a hack

Why do we have to have the boring and ridiculous 'scaremongering' label thrown around on this forum? If the report has been commissioned then it should be expected to underline the negative aspects as well as the positive and we should all be worried only if HS2 didn't commission such studies, the whole HS2 program is going to be expensive enough as it is, ignoring the worries of people such as Woodward, Connolly and Krylov would be criminal as well as financially ruinous if their worries were to prove true

I've met Prof Woodward many times and to describe him as "worried" about HS2 would be a nonsense.

The scaremongering is all in Gilligan's reporting. The geotechnical issues are all well known and it just sounds like this report is detailing the additional measures required when going from 186mph to 225mph.

Typical rubbish from Gilligan.

 

[Phil.]

The maximum projected speed on HS2 of 400 km/h is still well short of the world rail speed record of 574.8 km/h which was achieved in France in April 2007.

There's a big difference in running or setting a record from what happens on a daily basis.

 

[33Hz]

I've met Prof Woodward many times and to describe him as "worried" about HS2 would be a nonsense.

The scaremongering is all in Gilligan's reporting. The geotechnical issues are all well known and it just sounds like this report is detailing the additional measures required when going from 186mph to 225mph.

Typical rubbish from Gilligan.

Maybe a letter to the editor from yourself or the professor is in order?

 

[Altnabreac]

Maybe a letter to the editor from yourself or the professor is in order?

I'm sure he'll be correcting the false impression given.

 

[33Hz]

He should correct the false impression on top speeds as well.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/mar/13/hs2-derailment-risk-top-speed-research

 

[Ironside]

I find it odd that there is very little in the press about the result of the third reading. I could only find the articles by entering hs2 in their search engine.

 

[swt_passenger]

I find it odd that there is very little in the press about the result of the third reading. I could only find the articles by entering hs2 in their search engine.

ISTM there's no real investigative journalism about HS2.

The 'antis' aren't going to be bombarding the media with their view for the papers to regurgitate after a successful third reading, so unless the DfT take on that role not much will be written at all...

 

[absolutelymilk]

Top UK civil servant reviews HS2 project

Britain’s most senior civil servant, Sir Jeremy Heywood, is reviewing HS2 as fears grow that the high-speed railway cannot be built within its £55bn budget in its current form.

Heywood, the cabinet secretary and head of the civil service, has been quietly investigating HS2 in an effort to cut costly elements. He is expected to report to ministers by the summer. Campaigners opposed to the project believe this could lead to less compensation for businesses and homeowners whose properties are affected by construction.

Also possibly getting rid of the connection to the WCML north of Birmingham and just going straight to Crewe.

 

[The Planner]

Handsacre will get built, not in the hybrid bill form as it wont have 7tph but it will get built or Stafford loses its HS2 train and Stoke can't get any.

 

[HSTEd]

How much is that Stafford train worth politically though?
They could easily just add more stops on Classic trains which would probably be more popular in the long run.

And stoke isn't that far from Crewe really.

 

[The Planner]

Depends if someone wants to turn around to Stafford and say "sorry you aren't getting anything", pretty safe Tory seat with 9000 majority. Nothing will get decided until after Hybrid Bill anyway.

 

[deltic]

Top UK civil servant reviews HS2 project



Also possibly getting rid of the connection to the WCML north of Birmingham and just going straight to Crewe.

I find this an odd story - Jeremy Heywood is not going to spend time going though an engineering project seeing if he can save a few pounds here and there - David Higgins has already done this and it is Treasury and DfT that monitor spend not the Cabinet office. Cabinet Office is more interested in governance and procurement issues.

 

[snowball]

And stoke isn't that far from Crewe really.

Nantwich isn't that far from Crewe either but its lost its importance after the railway was built via Crewe instead.